A right which correlated to an undesirable outcome

[Curious George]

Statistics is often a valuable tool. So, in many debates statistics get tossed around trying to demonstrate a correlation or a lack of a correlation. But I wonder if such a correlation matters when we are discussing rights which I hope we all agree should be guarded strongly.

So let us assume for the sake of argument that free speech for instance, correlated with unfortunate outcomes such as lying, slander, hate speech, bullying etc. Should we abrogate free speech or should we focus on addressing the negative outcomes?

And, does focusing the outcomes mean preventative measures which in effect abrogate free speech? For example, (assuming it was logistically possible) should we have some sort of registry for speech wherein all internet speech was checked by a group of checkers do determine if it was "true" and not intended to bully or incite violence etc.? Or is it better to focus our resources on education, awareness, reporting, etc when it comes to prevention?

 

[Curious George]

By free speech, do you just mean the legal right to say something?

Or in the John Stuart Mill sense?

Both...I think. It uses free speech as an example but the idea is to draw an abstract principle by which we can evaluate rights.

 

[Curious George]

By free speech, do you just mean the legal right to say something?

Or in the John Stuart Mill sense?

I haven't read Mill, so I am not sure. But a quick trip to stanford encyclopedia of philosophy did not say anything in opposition of what I am asking.

 

[Curious George]

Well this could mean denying someone's legal right to say something, or the "right" to be heard on certain platforms.

Example: When certain people are prevented from speaking at Universities, they are having their free speech denied to some standard, however their legal right to free speech wasn't denied.

I don't have an issue with removing certain people's platform to speech (example: banning people from RF for adult content or personal attacks) but I would not remove one's legal right to say such things.

Although I would rather focus on awareness and education. Many westerner's attitude toward politics is more and more Brave New World every day, and I fear eventually what is true and what is not true will stop mattering to large amounts of people altogether. The moment that happens, "the free market of ideas" stops being a thing and curbing free speech (legally and deplatforming) becomes more reasonable.

I definitely was not discussing someone saying a person saying you can't say that on my private platform. I am speaking of a nations right to abrogate rights in general. Nor am I talking about the punitive measure of abrogating a right. If someone uses their rights to destructive ends and abrogating rights is the only means to prevent this, then I do not see it as too harsh of a punishment. But an individual guilty of an act is different from an individual innocent of an act. So, to abrogate innocent individual rights based on guilty individuals seems like a mistake regardless of what correlations exist.

The right to privacy in airports is virtually non-existent. This is something one accepts in going to an airport. While I disagree with this, it is a private enterprise such as RF. So it is different than the masses voting to extinguish the right to privacy. We should not abrogate the right to privacy of individuals in society regardless of how much privacy correlates to violence or death.

 

[Father Heathen]

Bullying falls under harassment, threats, intimidation, etc. which goes beyond mere speech; i.e. expressing a belief, idea, or opinion.

 

[Curious George]

Bullying falls under harassment, threats, intimidation, etc. which goes beyond mere speech; i.e. expressing a belief, idea, or opinion.

I agree, that bullying can fall under those categories. And we make illegal the specific type of speech that we do not want protected without abrogatimg the right to free speech. I would suggest that this is the best way. It is not the only way. We could eliminate rights just as well. Which way do you think is better?

 

[Father Heathen]

I agree, that bullying can fall under those categories. And we make illegal the specific type of speech that we do not want protected without abrogatimg the right to free speech. I would suggest that this is the best way. It is not the only way. We could eliminate rights just as well. Which way do you think is better?

We don't need to eliminate any rights nor have to make any type of speech illegal, because bullying, libel, incitement, etc. aren't forms of mere speech. Harassment and libel are already illegal.

 

[Curious George]

We don't need to eliminate any rights nor have to make any type of speech illegal, because bullying, libel, incitement, etc. aren't forms of mere speech. Harassment and libel are already illegal.

They are not forms of protected speech, I agree.

But that doesn't address the question. Is it better to target the specific behavior with criminality, and deal with prevention in a broad sense of education etc, or is it better to abrogate a right. Just because we do it one way does not mean that it is the best way. I am simply opening the discussion concerning what is best when dealimg with rights that have a correlation with undesirable outcomes.

 

[Father Heathen]

They are not forms of protected speech, I agree.

But that doesn't address the question. Is it better to target the specific behavior with criminality, and deal with prevention in a broad sense of education etc, or is it better to abrogate a right. Just because we do it one way does not mean that it is the best way. I am simply opening the discussion concerning what is best when dealimg with rights that have a correlation with undesirable outcomes.

I would rather go the education route than take away rights to prevent them from being abused, if I understand the question correctly.

 

[Curious George]

I would rather go the education route than take away rights to prevent them from being abused, if I understand the question correctly.

Yes, target the undesirable outcomes as criminal, and work towards education, reporting, awareness etc to help prevent the undesirable outcomes.

Do you think this is abstract process should be used with all rights? If not what distinguishes rights that should be treated differently?

 

[Father Heathen]

All rights and freedoms should be treated the same. The only exception I could think of off the top of my head is requiring training, testing, licencing, etc. for firearms.

 

[Curious George]

All rights and freedoms should be treated the same. The only exception I could think of off the top of my head is requiring training, testing, licencing, etc. for firearms.

Why? Should we require training, testing, licensing etc. for the right to own a gun, vs other rights? Now I am not saying that training testing and licensing are not good things. I am asking your basis for distinguishing this right against the other rights?

 

[Father Heathen]

Why? Should we require training, testing, licensing etc. for the right to own a gun, vs other rights? Now I am not saying that training testing and licensing are not good things. I am asking your basis for distinguishing this right against the other rights?

A slip of the tongue has a smaller damage potential than a slip of the trigger.

 

[Curious George]

A slip of the tongue has a smaller damage potential than a slip of the trigger.

Guns can kill people, words can kill thousands.

But your argument is that guns are more dangerous? Aren't accidents just unfortunate outcomes? Appealing to unfortunate outcomes does little if we agree that the manner in which we cope with unfortunate outcomes is x. So, let us seek to avoid such with education and awareness- general education and awareness.

Otherwise, you need to explain why it is okay to abrogate rights based on the possibility of unfortunate outcomes.

 

[leibowde84]

Statistics is often a valuable tool. So, in many debates statistics get tossed around trying to demonstrate a correlation or a lack of a correlation. But I wonder if such a correlation matters when we are discussing rights which I hope we all agree should be guarded strongly.

So let us assume for the sake of argument that free speech for instance, correlated with unfortunate outcomes such as lying, slander, hate speech, bullying etc. Should we abrogate free speech or should we focus on addressing the negative outcomes?

And, does focusing the outcomes mean preventative measures which in effect abrogate free speech? For example, (assuming it was logistically possible) should we have some sort of registry for speech wherein all internet speech was checked by a group of checkers do determine if it was "true" and not intended to bully or incite violence etc.? Or is it better to focus our resources on education, awareness, reporting, etc when it comes to prevention?

I don't think there is a problem with our system. It is up to the media to factcheck politicians and keep them honest, reporting on every false claim that they make. They do us all a service by doing so. That is why Trump hates them so much. He is used to getting away with petty lies, personal insults, and ignorant statements.

 

[leibowde84]

Statistics is often a valuable tool. So, in many debates statistics get tossed around trying to demonstrate a correlation or a lack of a correlation. But I wonder if such a correlation matters when we are discussing rights which I hope we all agree should be guarded strongly.

So let us assume for the sake of argument that free speech for instance, correlated with unfortunate outcomes such as lying, slander, hate speech, bullying etc. Should we abrogate free speech or should we focus on addressing the negative outcomes?

And, does focusing the outcomes mean preventative measures which in effect abrogate free speech? For example, (assuming it was logistically possible) should we have some sort of registry for speech wherein all internet speech was checked by a group of checkers do determine if it was "true" and not intended to bully or incite violence etc.? Or is it better to focus our resources on education, awareness, reporting, etc when it comes to prevention?

Also, ridicule is a great tool to fight back against bullying, lying, etc.

 

[Stevicus]

Statistics is often a valuable tool. So, in many debates statistics get tossed around trying to demonstrate a correlation or a lack of a correlation. But I wonder if such a correlation matters when we are discussing rights which I hope we all agree should be guarded strongly.

So let us assume for the sake of argument that free speech for instance, correlated with unfortunate outcomes such as lying, slander, hate speech, bullying etc. Should we abrogate free speech or should we focus on addressing the negative outcomes?

And, does focusing the outcomes mean preventative measures which in effect abrogate free speech? For example, (assuming it was logistically possible) should we have some sort of registry for speech wherein all internet speech was checked by a group of checkers do determine if it was "true" and not intended to bully or incite violence etc.? Or is it better to focus our resources on education, awareness, reporting, etc when it comes to prevention?

We already have an adequate standard when it comes to incendiary speech which can create a "clear and present danger."

I can see some potential in regulating paid or commercial speech. For example, the ban on cigarette advertising on TV and radio was implemented without difficulty and considered Constitutional. I consider that free speech does not supersede an individual's right to make a rational decision free of manipulation, chicanery, or trickery. Sales pitches should be regulated, since they can also lead to negative outcomes. Any kind of aggressive, high-pressure sales tactics should be banned. If a person says "I'm not interested," then the next word out of that salesman's mouth should earn him/her an immediate 10-year prison sentence. Phone solicitation and telemarketing should also be banned.

 

[Curious George]

I don't think there is a problem with our system. It is up to the media to factcheck politicians and keep them honest, reporting on every false claim that they make. They do us all a service by doing so. That is why Trump hates them so much. He is used to getting away with petty lies, personal insults, and ignorant statements.

Im not asking if there is a problem with our system. Rather what is the best way to deal with rights that correlate to negative outcomes.

 

[Curious George]

We already have an adequate standard when it comes to incendiary speech which can create a "clear and present danger."

I am not asking what we do but what we ought to do.

I can see some potential in regulating paid or commercial speech. For example, the ban on cigarette advertising on TV and radio was implemented without difficulty and considered Constitutional. I consider that free speech does not supersede an individual's right to make a rational decision free of manipulation, chicanery, or trickery. Sales pitches should be regulated, since they can also lead to negative outcomes. Any kind of aggressive, high-pressure sales tactics should be banned. If a person says "I'm not interested," then the next word out of that salesman's mouth should earn him/her an immediate 10-year prison sentence. Phone solicitation and telemarketing should also be banned.

wow that is a strong penalty.

So I am confused. If a right correlates to an unfortunate outcome it is okay then or not okay then to abrogate the right?

 

[Stevicus]

wow that is a strong penalty.

I was being a bit facetious with the penalty.

So I am confused. If a right correlates to an unfortunate outcome it is okay then or not okay then to abrogate the right?

The outcome may not be the only issue though. It's also the motive behind someone exercising a given right. I don't think the right itself should be abrogated, but there can be ways of dealing with those who abuse those rights.